​"NAZBOL IS A GARBAGE IDEOLOGY WHICH CONTRADICTS ITSELF, AND ITS PROPOSED MARXIST-INSPIRED COMMUNIST POLICIES WOULD CRIPPLE, NOT UPLIFT, ANY NATION WHICH IMPLEMENTED THEM..."

-ROMAN GARZA

NAZBOL IS A GARBAGE IDEOLOGY

PUBLISHED: 8th May, 2018 | By ROMAN GARZA

What is Naz-Bol? Nazbolism? Somewhat of an unknown phrase for most, even to those familiar with the current political landscape. They are essentially anti-.. well everything, taking a stand against all existing political ideologies and groups, except for an eccentric revisionist view of communism. They have harsh criticisms of the modern left, libertarianism, the alt-right, as well as mainstream politics. It is a fairly new, post-modern political faction.

NazBol reinvents what most people would term fascism, which historically, is diametrically opposed to international socialism or communism. Yet, also defiant to any coherent understanding of economics, and blatantly hostile towards existing political movements on the right including conservatism, libertarianism, republicanism, traditionalism and national socialism. In understanding NazBol one has to make a distinction between the more serious followers of this political and social philosophy, which are really only found in Russia/the Eastern Bloc, (that's where it developed as an ideology and political party) and a ”irony bro" attitude, a communist, or sometimes right-wing based post-ironic nihilistic neo-reactionarism. Essentially, a bleak and hopeless outlook on the world that really only exists to 'troll' whatever is left of it, and at the very best, it craves a variation of the cruel rigidity found in the Soviet Union as a standard of structure (most of what is seen from NazBol however is latter not the former).

NazBol being an ironic contradictory play on nazism (national socialism), most importantly though is the combination with 'Bol' which stands for Bolshevism. Which is entirely what this ideology is about. National Bolshevism. "NazBol" is a meme, but where it comes from is interesting and speaks to the kind of people who would adopt and promote these memetics in the first place. The irony being the fact that the Nazi Party in Germany fought grievously against Bolsheviks and Bolshevism, but most people (especially libertarians) don't see these ideologies as very far apart. NazBols adopt the "Naz" to refer to two things: 1) the nationalization of currency, and 2) the sentiment of ‘volk' meaning "folk" in English, it can further mean "of, by and for the people".

Aleksandr Dugin is the ideological Godfather of national bolshevism beginning in the early 1990's. It is what's titled "radical nationalism and Bolshevism". The media proclaims him to be “the most dangerous philosopher in history", but let's look into that. Dugin's political journey began from anti-communism and Russian nationalism in the 1980's. He spoke very positively of "natural national conservatism that had a passion for true changes" for Russia. Shortly after Dugin joined a nationalist group called "Pamyat”, and soon after that he helped write a program for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. In his 1997 article "Fascism – Borderless and Red", Dugin proclaimed the arrival of a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism" in Russia. He believes that it was "by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of national socialism that determined the nature of its ideology."

Take what you want from his comments about national socialism in Germany, however whenever you hear someone decry something as "chauvinistic and racist”, it’s a good chance they're a communist. This is the interesting thing about Aleksandr Dugin, he seeks for a strong, national, fascist Russia. Fascism in this case as defined as a revolutionary front to whatever the current paradigm happens to be. However, he also sought to have the more Marxist policy strains foundearly in Benito Mussolini’s writings, (as he was transitioning away from socialism). Communism without the international marxism, but outfitted with all the strengths of a national identity.

Dugin even speaks highly of Julius Evola, another writer who wisely identified the ills that have befallen Western Civilization, as grim or anti-liberal as they might have been we see evermore that these observations are correct. Men such as Evola and Oswald Spengler have written about the sickness plaguing the West and have made important observations that stretch the course of history and speak the nature of man. Dugin seems to be attempting to follow in their footsteps, though his nationalistic inclinations are admirable, in this case the cure prescribed is as bad as the disease.

NazBol should be seen for what it is, a flawed ideology, yet a product of its time. What is prescribed is a nationally cogent society equipped with communist public policies, as if that could possibly benefit the people living within such a state. Dugin appears to vouch for the control and camaraderie found long ago in the beginnings of the Soviet Union, but not the internationalist agenda found therein. Yet, history has a much different lesson for those wanting to retry the failed experiment of communism once again.

Dugin is a huge supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has involvement in the Russian government. One could compare him to the neo-conservatives found in the United States of America, as he criticizes Putin for not being aggressive enough in his foreign policy. What else would one expect from a communist? Who knew that an internet political subculture would form from the policy prescriptions made by Dugin specifically for Russia? It's quite a spectacle for one to advocate for an implementation of the very same ideology which is deconstructing and tearing down their very civilization, in a misguided effort to save it.It may also be true that many 'NazBols' are not familiar with Dugin, yet they both share this odd mixture of left and right, this conciliation of fascism + communism = ?

All in all, NazBol is a garbage ideology which contradicts itself, and its proposed Marxist-inspired communist policies would cripple, not uplift, any nation which implemented them. Knowing what we do about the history of communism one has to question the faculties of any person who takes this ideology seriously. The only merits one could derive from this philosophy would be the exploration of the meaning of fascism, and being lead to other thinkers like Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. One other thing that’s easy to see is that NazBols share a spot on the same helicopter as their communist brothers.